Engineered Crisis

This article by Brandon Smith was originally published at Alt-Market.com.

Tracking geopolitical and fiscal developments over the past several years is a bit like watching a slow motion train wreck; you know exactly what the consequences of the events will be, you try to warn people as much as possible, but, ultimately, you cannot reverse the disaster. The disaster has for all intents and purposes already happened. What we are witnessing is the aftermath as a forgone conclusion.

This is why whenever someone asks me as an economic and political analyst “when the collapse is going to happen,” I have to shake my head in bewilderment. The “collapse” is here now. It is done. It is a historical fact. It’s just that not many people have the eyes to see it yet, primarily because they are hyper-focused on all the wrong things.

For many centuries now, elitists in power have understood the value of geopolitical distraction as a tool for controlling the masses. If you examine the underlying motivations behind the majority of wars between nations regardless of the era, you will in most cases discover that the power brokers on both sides tend to be rather friendly with each other. In fact, monarchies and oligarchies are historically notorious for fabricating diplomatic tensions and conflicts in order to force populations back under their control. That is to say, wars and other man-made conflicts give the citizenry something to react to, instead of hunting down the establishment cabal like they should.

One of the greatest illusions of human progress is the notion that most conflicts happen at random; that there are two sides and that those sides are fighting over ideological differences. In truth, most conflicts have nothing to do with ideological differences between governments and financial oligarchs.

The REALTARGETof these conflicts is the people — or, to be more precise, the psychology of the people. Conflicts are often engineered in order to affect a particular change within the minds of the masses or to distract them from other dangers or solutions.

These scenarios are taken at face value by many because, unfortunately, most people have short attention spans.

If an observer in 2007 was to be transported 10 years into the future, in 2017 they would find a world in dramatic and horrifying decline. The shock would be overwhelming. Ask an observer today what they think of the state of the world and they might not see much to be concerned about.

The human mind becomes easily acclimated to crisis over time. We are resilient in this way, but also weak, because we forget the way things should be in order to deal with the way things are.

We only seem to take drastic actions to improve our situation after we have already hit rock bottom. The year of 2017 has so far been host to some extreme accelerations in crisis and collapse, and rock bottom is not looking too far away anymore.

Four trigger points around the globe concern me greatly, not because I think they will necessarily lead to a disaster any greater than the one we are already living in, but because they have the potential to effectively distract the public from more serious concerns.

I am of course talking about the powder keg issues of Syria, North Korea, China vs. India, as well as Russia.

First, let’s be clear, the ongoing destabilization of our economy should be the primary concern of every person on the planet, most particularly those in the West. We are living within the husk of a dead fiscal system, reanimated with the voodoo of central bank stimulus, but only for a limited time.

Economic decline is the greatest threat to cultural longevity as well as to human freedom. Even nuclear war could not hold a candle to the terror of financial disaster, because at least in a nuclear war the slate is wiped clean for establishment elites as well as the normal population. At least, in the event of nuclear war, the elites face anarchy just like we do.

In an economic crisis, the establishment maintains a certain level of control and thus its arsenal of toys – Including biometric surveillance grids, standing military support in the form of martial law, as well as the delusion among the populace that things “might go back to the way they were before” given enough time and patience.

There will be no nuclear war. Perhaps a limited nuclear event, but not a global exchange.

There will be no moment of apocalypse as it is commonly displayed in Hollywood films. However, we WILL witness lesser conflicts as a means to turn our gaze away from the economy itself.

To give a quick summary of the economy so far from an American perspective, I must first remind readers of the constant misinformation that is often used by government institutions and central banks in order to hide negative data.

They also still, for some reason, like to cite the decline in the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent while continuing to ignore the fact that 95 million working age Americans are no longer counted as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They argue that this is an entirely acceptable condition, even though it is unprecedented, because “home surveys” from the BLS claim that most of these people “do not really want to work.” These utterly ambiguous surveys leave open ended data to be interpreted essentially however the BLS wants to interpret it. Meaning, if they want to label millions of people as “disinterested” in employment, they can and will regardless of whether this is true or not.

Infowars| Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) fears that the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws could lead to Obama himself failing to enforce election laws, a concern voiced amidst calls by some for Obama to run for a third term in office.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearingyesterday, Gowdy asked Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, “If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?”

Lazarus responded “no,” to which Gowdy shot back, “Why not? If he can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?”

“Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them,” Lazarus answered. Gowdy responded by reiterating that Obama was not applying immigration and marijuana laws, a stance with which Lazarus disagreed.

Gowdy subsequently asked George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley what the likelihood of the administration suspending election laws was, to which Turley responded, “I think that some of these areas I can’t imagine to be justified through prosecutorial discretion. It’s not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say, an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the law. That’s a legislative decision.”

Turley added that the country was currently embroiled in “the most serious constitutional crisis in my lifetime” and that Congress was becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Concern about the Obama administration’s failure to enforce election laws arrives in the aftermath of a Washington Post editorial by Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history and education at New York University, which caused controversy by advocating that Obama run for a third term in order to avoid being made a scapegoat by critics within his own party.

Despite acknowledging Obama’s record low approval ratings, Zimmerman asked, “If Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?”

“Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear,” he added.

Under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, a President is limited to two terms in office.

Zimmerman’s argument caused understandable consternation amongst conservatives, some of whom expressed the fear (which is somewhat routine when any president is coming to the end of his term), that the stage was being set for some kind of engineered crisis that would be exploited to justify a third term for Obama.

About the author:Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Primary Sidebar

About A Sheep No More

A Sheep No More is no longer plugged into the Matrix like the many sheep who are still programmed to believe that they have correct information provided by a varied and “independent media.” In fact the media is owned by 5 or 6 mega-media companies run by corporate advertising executives and Washington.